why didnt romans object to are

Public entertainments and sporting activities were a very important aspect of Roman life. In fact, Juvenal went as far as to say that all the Roman public was interested in was ‘panem et circenses’, bread and circuses. Supporting this claim is the vast amount of wealth poured into the games, the lavishness of the buildings which were to house them and also the wealth of pottery and art dedicated to the peoples’ favourite games, the gladiatorial games and beast shows.

However, although amongst the great legacy of Rome, these games were one of the greatest savageries; humans and animals pitted against one another in such an extravagantly public setting, merely for entertainment purposes, has to be deemed the nastiest blood sport ever invented.

The only modern (legal) equivalent sport where the purpose is to harm another human being is boxing; however, many precautions are taken to prevent competitors from serious injury and certainly death. If by any chance a competitor is seriously injured there would undoubtedly be huge legal implications and a huge worldwide public outcry. So why, then, did so few Romans object to the arena spectacles where men and exotic beas

Unsurprisingly, many Christian writers were strictly opposed to the games, Tertullian calls it ‘murder’, but again the main theme of the opposition is not the brutalities themselves but the effect that they have on the spectator. In his De spectaculis, Tertullian criticises the pleasure of the spectators and how it can corrupt the conscience: ‘No one comes to pleasure without ignoble desire; no one suffers ignoble desire without negative consequences’.

Another Roman stoic attitude of opposition can be found in Seneca. In his letter he describes the disgust that he felt when he stopped to watch a public spectacle:

I believe that the most important aspect that has to be addressed when answering the question, ‘why did so few Romans object to arena spectacles?’ is the culture in which all Romans were steeped. It is one far removed from our own, mainly concerned with warfare, slavery and animal sacrifice. And so perhaps it is not surprising that Romans were desensitised to witnessing the death of a man or animal, or having control over a man whose very life is at his disposal.

The example of St. Augustine gives us an idea of the atmosphere of the games that is extremely hard for a modern reader to grasp. The ‘frenzied ecstasy of an agitating crowd, witnessing and reacting to a common event’. With estimated audiences of around 45,000 people, it is very possible that many objectors did not have the courage to speak out against the games, the sponsor for the games and the mob. Perhaps so few people objected because the contenders were the dregs of society, villains, prisoners of war and slaves, to who Romans afforded no value of life.

It is evident that there is no simple explanation for why the games were so popular and went largely unopposed. They were used for vital political purposes that were suitable to politicians, emperors and the common people alike, if the games were to be abolished in the Empire, the common people would have no political arena at all. The mob were enticed to the games as they were free entertainment and they were frequently given food, grain and money handouts that were not available elsewhere. The games inspired the Roman values, helped to explain the dominance of their Empire and gave them a power over their enemies as depicted in the arena.

Some topics in this essay:
BC Caesar, Seneca Christian, Nigidius Maius, Juvenal Roman, Petronius’ Satyricon, St Augustine, Fronto Trajan, Samnites Gauls, Augustine Confessions, Unsurprisingly Christian, arena spectacles, common people, prisoners war, romans object arena, attend games, free entertainment, object arena, opposed games, pairs gladiators, one’s character, romans object, games 55 bc, object arena spectacles, prisoners war slaves, harmful one’s character,